PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

§
Amendment again proposed—
In page 2, line 2, after the word 'Commons' to insert the words 'and two Members of each House of Parliament appointed at the beginning of each session in manner provided by Standing Orders shall be a Standing Committee of the two Houses of Parliament."—(Dr. Clark.)

As hon. Members are aware, we have been considering the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness. The object of that Amendment and the desire of its
1532
mover is that there should be proper control. That wish is reflected by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I feel very strongly the advisability of having other persons added to the panel. Under the scheme of the Bill as at present drafted there is certain control over this matter; but what we propose to do is to alter our Bill in the sense that in every case it will be necessary to bring the matter before this House so that it will always be possible for this House to consider any Bill and amend it, whether it had been opposed in a former stage at the local inquiry or not. The exact form of the alteration has not yet been decided upon, but we think it might very conveniently arise upon an Amendment which is down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in Clause 7, page 5, and line 9. The control which he suggests in that Amendment I can assure the Committee we shall accept; but there must be some alteration
1533
in the words, and under all the circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

I did not hear a part of the right hon. Gentleman's explanations and objections, but I think I substantially know what they amount to, and I recognise that this involves a considerable concession to the views expressed by those who sit both upon this side of the House and the other side. I also understand that in this and in other respects the right hon. Gentleman is ready to meet the views put forward. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make considerable alterations to meet the ideas of the vestries, and I think that will be most palatable to the Scottish people as a whole. On these grounds I do not think it would be well for my hon. friend, with whom I entirely sympathise, and whose Amendments I have supported, to press his Amendment at this stage. I may say that I have more than once expressed an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate could carry through a Bill for this purpose if anyone on this earth could, and I recognise in the conciliatory manner which he has adopted from first to last the fulfilment of my prediction of his success. I hope it will be understood that we are not foregoing any of our rights to criticise when we think necessary any points that may come before us; but on the main principle of this part of the scheme of the Bill I think we have had such concessions given to us as to justify us in withdrawing the Amendment now before the House.

The Amendment which I beg to propose is put down with a desire to make the Bill a practical and good one. Under the Bill as it stands at present there is a statutory obligation placed upon the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, which is quite outside Parliamentary practice. I therefore propose as an Amendment that there should not be an obligation of
1534
a statutory character which might be enforced by mandamus, but that in the exercise of their discretion under this Bill the Chairmen should be subject in the ordinary way to the rules of the House, and not to any outside tribunal. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment, recognising, as I trust he will, that it will put the Bill in better form and make it more in accordance with constitutional precedent.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 3, to leave out from 'shall' to end of clause, and insert 'if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order prescribe all matters of practice and procedure which will enable them to take into
consideration the draft Order, and to report thereon to the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. Cripps.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

I am quite willing to meet my hon. and learned friend in this matter, by leaving out from the word "shall" down to "the Secretary for Scotland," in order to insert the words he proposes. This, however, will necessitate a small Amendment in the next line, and I therefore propose in line 11, as consequential to this Amendment, to insert after the first word "of" "the Chairman report and." That makes the Amendment perfectly consistent, and at the same time gives effect to what the hon. Member wishes.

I think anyone who is interested in constitutional procedure—and who ought not to be?
—will feel obliged to the hon. Member for bringing this Amendment forward, and we are pleased to acknowledge the attitude of the Lord Advocate with regard to this matter.

I think this Amendment would cut out an Amendment which stands in my name. I ought to say that I put down that Amendment, not with a view of pressing it to a Division, but really to understand what the nature of the proposal of the Lord Advocate is. The clause appears to involve two lines of procedure, and I desire to know what the intention of the Government is.

The genesis of the proviso of the clause is in the proceedings of the Select Committee last year. The proviso is put in so that if the Secretary for Scotland does know where the scheme is opposed he should hand on his knowledge to the Chairman. That is the whole meaning of it.

The Amendment that I propose must, I think, he admitted by all who lave considered this Bill to be a reasonable one. It is to omit the words "or mainly" in the passage "if it appears … that the provisions or some provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland." The effect of the Amendment is to restrict the operation of this Act to Scotch business. The last clause of the Bill says that this Bill shall apply to Scotland only. It is not only called the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, but the terms of the Bill itself apply only to Scotland. Now, so long as the words "or mainly" appear, there is no Bill relating to England which might not come within its provisions, provided it relates also to Scotland, even though the opinion of the Chairmen is that it applies more to Scotland than to England. It seems to me quite foreign to the intention of the Bill that such should be the effect, but as it is at present drafted so it stands. I want to call the attention of the Committee to what the effect will be if the words "or mainly" are allowed to remain. In the first place, if a Private Bill relates in any way to Scotland it must he brought into the provisions of this Bill. The consequence is that, no matter how much a Bill relates to England, still it must come under the Scotch Procedure Bill if in any part it touches Scotch interests. That, of course, would be grossly unfair to the predominant partner, and I cannot understand why the Government have departed from the plain language in which former Bills, if I remember rightly, were couched, which limited the power to Private Bills which related solely to Scotland.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 13, to leave out 'or mainly.'"—(Moulton.)

I really think that there is no such danger as the hon. Member seems to foresee. The retention of the words is simply to provide for such undertakings as may extend a few yards over the border. Surely the hon. Member might be content to trust the Chairmen in such a matter, for they would never be likely to give a wrong decision in regard to it. After the concessions which I have already made today, I hope the Committee will support me in opposing this Amendment, because I think it would be a pity to insert these words.

I shall be quite happy to accept the hon. Member's Amendment in the form adopted in the 1892 Bill. I therefore beg to move to insert the words—

"Or raise any full question of policy or principles."

§
The clause will then read—
If it appeared from such report that the provisions, or some of the provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland, or are of such a character or magnitude, or raise any such question of policy or principle, that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill, and not by Provisional Order.

I should like to ask what the Lord Advocate proposes to do with his Amendment as to measures effecting a change in the general law. We have now got a tribunal that will consider certain Bills for carrying out works, but it is a different matter when we have proposals for dealing with the liberty of the subject,
1537
and it is necessary to keep these proposals under the control of Parliament. I beg therefore to move the Amendment standing in my name.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 13, after 'Scotland,' to insert, 'or effect a change in the general law.'"—(Mr. J.P. Smith.)

I think the words of my Amendment which appears further down in the Paper, are very much the same as those in the Amendment of the hon. Member, but slightly more definite in form. The words which I proposed to submit are to insert after "Scotland," "or deviate from, or are repugnant to the general law." What the Lord Advocate proposes is that we should have some control, in the form of a confirmation Bill or some other form. But that is not the same control as sending a Bill to a special Committee, the Police and Sanitary Committee, and getting a special report from that Committee. I do not think it is necessary to argue that we ought to keep this legislative power sufficiently under our own control, and the words which I propose are intended to retain that power in cases of real importance.

May I point out to the Lord Advocate that the effect of these Amendments would he to hamper the whole purpose of the Bill, because when you introduce a Bill into this House it means in many cases an alteration of the general law. You could never bring in a Bill for the Corporation of Glasgow, for instance, without some little amendment of the general law, and I cannot conceive of any procedure under this Bill which would not make some such change.

If I understand the words of the Lord Advocate, they are not limited to the new cases, but are so wide as to cover the Amendment of the hon. Member. I confess I am a little afraid to put in words which might, by including one class of cases, exclude another. If we adopt the Lord Advocate's words, we shall be able to designate the class of cases referred to by simply passing in each
1538
session a Sessional Order similar to that by which we now refer such cases to the Police and Sanitary Committee.

I may say at once that I propose to pass over all questions of notices till the Report stage. I think the matter may be summarised thus. We discussed the question last time, and the feeling of the Committee was that for the Provisional Order system pure and simple we should, if possible, have rather a less expensive mode of procedure. On the other hand, if the matter has to go on as a Private Bill, it is quite clear we should have to amend the Standing Orders in that sense. There are two plans: either you have to have this question determined before notices are served, or you have to have an alternate notice. What I feel is that one would be in a much better position to give an intelligent consideration to the point when we have the Bill in its final form. Therefore I propose, with the permission of the House, to leave over this question of the notices until the Report stage.

I think the Amendment which stands in my name will really come within the principle which the Lord Advocate has just stated, hut if he desires it to be left over I do not desire to bring it up at the present time. What I want to point out is that nothing in this Bill ought to interfere with the power of this House to deal with its own procedure or its own Standing Orders. My Amend-
1539
ment was only to ensure that that right was preserved. With regard to the intercommunication of procedure, where the procedure under this Bill or the ordinary Private Bill procedure is adopted, it seems to me to be essential, if this Bill is to be a success, that where the Chairman holds that a particular procedure ought to be by Private Bill, and not under the terms of this Act, the notices and so on which have already been given should not be thrown away, but should be applicable to procedure by Private Bill. I may illustrate the point by the procedure in connection with the Light Railways Commissioners, where the entire separation of the procedure has created very great difficulty. I hope before the Report stage the Lord Advocate will see his way to preserve the control of this House over this procedure, and also to make sure that when the Chairman says particular proposals ought to come before this House all the expenditure up to that date in regard to notices and matters of that kind should not be thrown away, but be able to be utilised in connection with the other procedure.

As I have a similar proposal to this on the Paper, may I say that I hope that under no conditions will these last three lines be inserted. Nor are they in the least necessary. It is a most important proposal affecting the procedure of this House. We deal with this matter by Standing Order. I do not think my right hon. friend can find any instance where by Statute this House disentitles itself to take into consideration any petitions. There is no such case, as far as I know, in constitutional law, and I have hunted through all the books, because this
1540
proposal seemed to be of an extraordinarily unconstitutional character. The procedure under the Standing Orders of the House will practically arrive at the same result, and if my learned friend will accede to that, and not seek to put a statutory disability upon this House, I am quite content with what he will settle. It is most important that you should not allow the privileges of this House to be controlled even by Statute. I beg to move, the omission of these lines.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word 'Parliament' to the end of the clause."— (Mr. Cripps.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words, proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

This appears to me to be a most important subject, and I was rather surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Caithness did not propose to move his Amendment. The importance of the matter is emphasised by the fact that you have Amendments from all quarters of. the House to the same effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has thoroughly well explained the constitutional aspect of the case, and I trust the House will accept this Amendment.

I did not move my Amendment because we discussed the point fully on the first clause. The question is whether it should be compulsory or not. I think after the Government have agreed that everything can come before us, and we can have a Report stage where it is necessary, and a Third Reading, we should give way to them on this point, and that is why I did not move. This is merely raising the question again in a bad form.

The truth is this Amendment is very nearly out of order, because we have already decided, although we did not go to a Division, that. when you want anything which in the old days could be got by Private Bill, you should apply for a Provisional Order. It is not quite out of order, because if the Amendment were carried the result would be that we could do either. But my hon. and learned friend's argument, if carried
1541
out, would obviously make it impossible to have a Bill to deal with private legislation at all, because all private legislation procedure at the present moment is necessarily an infringement of the Standing Orders of this House; and if his position is right that you never can by Act tie up the powers of this House in regard to anything which is dealt with by Standing Orders, it is quite obvious that yon cannot have an Act at all to deal with private legislation procedure. But really this clause, as it stands, does not alter or interfere with the general powers of this House with regard to petitions. It simply carries out what we have already determined in the "may" and "shall" discussion.

I do not like to interfere even with one word in the course of a Scotch debate, but I confess I always had a great dislike to the lines now before us. It certainly does appear to me that they impair in the most important manner the liberties and almost the rights of the subject. While I desire to concur in what my hon. and learned friend has said as to the privileges and rights of Parliament, I should greatly regret, having regard to my experience as Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee, these lines forming part of this clause.

The provision in Clause 1 is so clear that there is really no necessity for this sub-section. I do not think they formed any part of the Bill of last year, and if I remember the proceedings in the Committee rightly they were introduced at the instance of the Lord Advocate. I regret he now proposes to retain them, because, in view of the clear nature of the provision in Clause 1, it is not desirable that these lines should stand.

I beg to join in everything that has been said as to the inexpediency, not to say danger, of these lines. I am not quite sure that it conduces to the rapid progress of the proceedings of the Committee for the Lord Advocate to say after you, Sir, have put it from the chair, that the Amendment is more or less out of order.

I thought I heard the right hon. Member say it was nearly out of order; if he did not say so I was mistaken. The hon. and learned Member opposite has given very fully the constitutional aspect of the matter, and surely we have no right to limit the power of the House in this way. If the hon. Member presses his Amendment to a Division, I shall support him in the lobby.

I only want to say one word in answer to what the Lord Advocate has said. His view is that so far as the rights and privileges of this House are concerned they have been settled in Subsection 1. There I quite agree with him. If his desire is, so far as the individual is concerned, to direct the way in which he should make application in the future, that point we have dealt with already in Sub-section 1. These three lines have no effect upon that, except so far as they detail the duties of this House in matters of procedure. That is to say, this House would be under statutory disabilities as regards entertaining such petitions or petitioners. You may put the disability on the petitioner, but that is entirely a different point. I hope the Lord Advo Cate or the First Lord of the Treasury will see that these words are unnecessary.

I quite agree that this matter was discussed under the first section of the Bill, but I thought that the decision arrived at was an exceedingly bad decision. Therefore I am very glad it has been brought up again, and that one or two men of eminence have taken the side of the subject in this matter. I feel certain the time will come when hon. Members will realise that they are making a great mistake in parting with a constitutional right of the subject which is almost as important as freedom of speech, and which has existed for many, many centuries. This is not the first time Parliament has attempted to infringe upon that right, but the attempt has not been successful. The Lord Advocate seems to me, in the present case, in these three lines, to be adding insult to injury. If the right has been taken away by the
1543
first clause, why repeat the operation here? I do hope that in so important a matter a Division will be taken, and I should support the Amendment.

If my hon. and learned friend's objection is to the form of the words, I am perfectly willing to take that into consideration along with the other questions of procedure. As I understand, that is really all he wants to raise, as he recognises that we have settled the whole question in the "may" and "shall" Division. I am not quite certain what the hon. Member for Nottingham meant, because I do not know that he was in the House when the previous decision was come to, and therefore perhaps he has not borne in mind that the House has already decided that it is a necessity that people should come by this method for a Provisional Order, leaving it to the Chairmen to relegate the proposal to the Private Bill procedure if necessary. Perhaps if I agree to consider the form of words he will be satisfied, but the hon. Member cannot expect me to give way on this, seeing that we have already taken the sense of the House upon the question.

In regard to what the Lord Advocate has said, although I believe I am entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Nottingham, I do not at all want to take up the time of the Committee; and as the Lord Advocate has promised to consider the question, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I entirely object to the Amendment being withdrawn. I do not see the use of wasting time discussing the question, and then not coming to some definite understanding as to what is going to be done. If the matter has been settled you do not want the words, and there is no use in settling it twice.

It was absolutely settled under Clause 1 of this Bill that it was compulsory to come under this Bill, and at first I must confess I thought the last part of this section was unnecessary. But on consideration I begin to doubt that, and there may possibly be cases where these words would be necessary. There is nothing to prevent them coming in the other way, unless some such words ate inserted. As
1544
I understand, my hon. and learned friend wishes to preserve certain rights of Parliament, and if that can he done better by Standing Order or by some other words, we are all agreed it should be done, but I earnestly trust the Committee will sustain the Lord Advocate in the view he has taken in regard to the necessity of something like this being inserted, and reject the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

Nothing in the words of the first clause would interfere with the right of any person to petition this House in the usual way for leave to bring in a Bill. At the same time there is a constitutional right of this House to listen to petitions, and if these words were retained there would he no power to this House to give leave to introduce a Private Bill notwithstanding the words of Clause 1. We have never yet cut out the right of any person in this country to petition this House, or the right of this House to consent to that petition by giving leave to bring in a Bill. So that, after all, this matter raises not the question of the right of the petitioner, which is involved in Clause 1—we have decided that—but the right of this House, upon a petition being presented to them, to say "We will allow this matter to come in by Private Bill." This House has always kept within its own hands the right of anyone to conic to them direct. We are dealing now with the right to come to this House and with the constitutional right of this House to say "Notwithstanding Clause 1 we will allow you to proceed by Private Bill."

The Lord Advocate has promised to consider this matter, and I would suggest that he might take into account the action of Parliament in reference to two matters which were formally settled by the action of the House. In the first place there was the matter of Divorce Bills, and then the right of electors to come to this House with regard to a controverted election for the decision of the House. Nothing could be more constitutional than the right of this House alone to consider such applications. But by Act of Parliament this House concurred in depriving itself of that right and vested it in a Committee of the House. I would suggest that the Lord Advocate should in considering the
1545
matter take these analogous subjects into account.

In regard to the constitutional principle referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, I should like to say that I should cite both his illustrations in favour of the proposal I have made. In regard to election petitions, the right is preserved to this House, although it would find it very inconvenient to exercise it, to interfere. The judicial part of the inquiry has been sent to a Committee, but a report has to be made to this House.

But you are bound to accept the decision. My hon. friend will not for a moment urge that this House could controvert the finding of the Court which had unseated a Member. It must act upon that conclusion.

I think this House preserves its control. The question of divorce is an entirely different point. This House has nothing to do with the matter going before the courts, but until the Divorce Court was instituted there was no legal right for divorce in this

§
country at all, and anybody who wanted a divorce had to come for an Act of Parliament. So far as Ireland is concerned, that procedure holds good to the present day. When the matter was brought for the first time within the area of the law courts you had to pass laws in order to allow divorce to take place without Act of Parliament. There is no analogy between that and what we are dealing with here. I hope my hon. friend will not go to a Division, as I should not be able to support him, seeing that all I desire is that this House should be protected, and the Lord Advocate has promised to consider that between now and the Report stage.

This is a thing which could be done either by a section in the Bill, which would equally affect the procedure of both Houses, or it could be done by us under our Standing Orders. I think the wiser course is to do it so that it equally affects both Houses; and this is, I believe, the better form.

I had put down an Amendment to reject Clause 2, because I did not under-
1548
stand it as it stood in the original Bill. The clause has now, however, been so entirely transformed that it would be ridiculous to take the course I had intended. It is clear that the important stage of this Bill will be the Report stage, and there-
1549
fore a prolonged discussion at this stage of the Bill would be superfluous; therefore I shall not oppose Clause 2 at this stage, but I wish to reserve my right to deal with it on the Report stage when we know what the Bill really is.

I think the Lord Advocate will agree with me that the Secretary for Scotland should not be allowed to grant a Provisional Order unless he has satisfied the Chairmen of both Houses of Parliament. I think it is a mere question of words, but the Lord Advocate cannot really mean to allow this procedure to be adopted without some intimation to the Chairmen. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the words would not allow the Secretary for Scotland to proceed without a Report being made, and whether it is not a proper thing to do to keep within the ordinary procedure of the House.

There is no compulsion under the Bill for the Chairman to give a Report at all. Whether this House may insist upon this being done is a matter we have not to deal with now. After the Amendment has been put in the clause there might not be any Report at all made, and the result would he that the whole thing would be at a standstill. In the interest of procedure I do think that the words in the Bill are absolutely necessary.

If there is no opposition to a Bill it appears to me to be a very extraordinary thing that the Secretary for Scotland should put the promoters to the expense of going through the whole of these formalities of bringing up witnesses and engaging counsel on the spot. I beg to move.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 37, to leave out from 'shall' to 'direct,' in line 39."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

§
Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

It appears to me that upon this point my hon. and learned friend and myself must be at cross-purposes. The clause says "shall if there is any opposition." We are all agreed that if there is any opposition the Secretary for Scotland ought to direct an inquiry. The clause also goes on to provide that the Secretary for Scotland may order an inquiry in any case where he thinks that an inquiry is necessary. Does my hon. friend wish to insist upon an inquiry if the Secretary for Scotland considers that an inquiry is unnecessary? I cannot help thinking that my hon. friend does not really wish that. If there is no opposition, let them have the Bill; but surely there are a great many cases in which you are not entitled to have your Bill, although nobody objects, for I think the preamble of a Bill should be proved. There are certain facts which ought to be proved in all cases before you get your Bill.

I have an Amendment in identical terms to the one which has been moved by my hon. friend. I understand that the local inquiry is to take the place of the inquiry before the Committee. You are proposing to create an inquiry before a panel which will have all the apparatus now in
1551
existence, and what we ask ourselves now is, why is it necessary in the case of an unopposed measure under the new system that there should be an inquiry when it is not necessary in the case of an unopposed Bill under the present system? We desire that there should not be introduced into this Bill as part of the new system a formal inquiry which was found to be unnecessary under the old system.

It is quite true that in the case of an unopposed Bill there is no inquiry at present, but then you have opportunities of control which are now possessed by this House. But suppose I put in the words which my hon. friend has suggested. Hon. Members would then be able to get up and say, "It is all very well for this House to do this; here you are going to allow a tribunal on the spot, under the direction of a Government Department, and is it safe to allow that without an inquiry where there are proper circumstances for an inquiry to be held?" There is no compulsion put upon the Secretary for Scotland to hold an inquiry, and if he does direct an inquiry and the tribunal reports against it he cannot grant the Order at all. Therefore, so far from increasing his powers this really diminishes them. I should have thought that the general feeling of the House would have been rather in favour of making an inquiry possible wherever there appeared to be a necessity for such inquiry.

I quite agree that there is a great deal to be said for the case in which the Secretary for Scotland may direct an inquiry. When a Bill comes into this House unopposed we have the Second Reading stage at which matters of this kind may be referred to. I can myself quite conceive many cases in which it should be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to direct an inquiry. I think the greatest danger to a community often arises in an unopposed Bill, and I think the Secretary for Scotland should have the power where he has the least doubt to direct an inquiry, notwithstanding the fact that no one has appeared in opposition in answer to the notices which have been issued.

At present in the case of an unopposed Bill there is, under the existing Standing Orders, a provision
1552
enabling the Chairman of Ways and Means to recommend to the House in matters of unopposed Bills that they should be treated as opposed Bills if he thinks the reasons are sufficient for him to act upon. So that there is at the present time the possibility of directing that an unopposed Bill shall be treated as an opposed Bill, and that is precisely the power which we desire to see given to the Secretary for Scotland.

I think it is desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should have an option in the matter, because it is obvious that in some cases questions might arise as to the desirability of an Act applying to some particular locality powers which had been obtained for another locality, but which, in the public interest it was undesirable should be extended to perhaps a smaller locality, or one differently situated. Difficulties of this sort could be avoided if the Secretary for Scotland exercised this power. I think that is a very important matter.

There is a great deal of force in the hon. Gentleman's observations, but it must be remembered that an inquiry may be necessary although there is no opposition. As my hon. friend behind me said, there may be some public interests involved which may require an inquiry. But where I think there is a great difference between the Lord Advocate and my two hon. friends is that the Lord Advocate appears to look on the Secretary for Scotland as the equivalent for the House of Commons, which he is not. At present an unopposed Bill in its different stages is in the hands of the House of Commons, and there are many opportunities of finding out anything that may be objectionable in it. It is proposed that the Secretary for Scotland should determine whether there should be a further inquiry and a further impediment in the way of an unopposed Bill, but is he the proper person to have that power? The Secretary for Scotland is a political officer at the head of a public Department, and we cannot always be certain that he will take the same general view of questions as would be taken by the House of Commons or by some Committee of the House to which its powers are delegated I think it would
1553
be safer in this respect to enlarge the powers of the Chairmen, Let them have the power of deciding whether a Bill, although unopposed, ought to be the subject of further inquiry. I wish to speak with all respect not only of the present Secretary for Scotland but of all Secretaries for Scotland, but I have a little lurking suspicion that sometimes they may be moved by reasons of their own to take a particular action in reference to a Private Bill, and on that ground I think it would be safer and more in accordance with past practice and constitutional principles if this power of putting a great impediment and great expense on persons promoting a Private Bill should be conferred on the Chairmen, or should be dealt with in some other way to that proposed.

I do not wish to introduce a discordant note into the pleasant proceedings of this Committee, but I desire to point out that the Secretary for Scotland would be master of the whole proceedings. He could issue the Order with such observations as he chose, and after all he would be in precisely the same position as the official chief of any other Department which has the power of issuing Provisional Orders, such as the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. I am not asking any superior position for the Secretary for Scotland, but I am putting him in the ordinary position of a chief of a Department which has power to issue Provisional Orders.

I certainly have no desire to put the House to an unnecessary Division. The control that the House will have will ultimately largely depend on the shape in which the Bill emerges from Committee, and I shall accordingly reserve any further action until the Report stage. I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the expediency on public grounds of having a small supplementary inquiry, but what I desire to avoid is that any officer of State should have the power of turning an unopposed Bill practically into an opposed measure, and inflict expense on the promoters.

I move the Amendment which stands in my name, in order
1554
to get from the Lord Advocate an explanation of the modified proposals of the Government. My proposal is to leave out "Commissioners," in order to insert "a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament appointed by the Standing Joint Committee." That would enable the panel to be composed of Scottish Peers and Scottish Members of Parliament. I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate an explanation of the Amendments which stand in his name.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 1, to leave out 'Commissioners,' and insert 'a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament appointed by the Standing Joint Committee.'"—(Dr. Clark.)

§
Question proposed, "That the word 'Commissioners' stand part of the clause."

The scheme of the Bill as it originally stood was that there should be a panel of 25 persons, the only criterion being that they were to be men of affairs, and Members of Parliament should be nominated on the panel before they could serve on committees of inquiry. During the Debate on the Second Reading an appeal was made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should consider the desirability of having this work done by Members of Parliament, and I told him that I would be glad to meet his views, although I could not go the whole way in the direction indicated. Then I put down the Amendment which stands in my name. I took the bulk of what I consider the very excellent suggestion of my hon. friend the Member for North Ayrshire, namely, that instead of putting Members of Parliament on this panel we should make them eligible as Commissioners, and then have other Commissioners as well, giving a hint to the selecting parties that they should use Members of Parliament whenever they could get them. Since the Amendment appeared on the Paper I have gathered that it would certainly be very agreeable to hon. Members on the other side of the House if I put in words of preferential import, and accordingly that is what I propose to do. Hon. Members will feel that I have gone as far as I can, and that I cannot quite go the length of cutting out other people, because then our scheme might break down. There are practically three schemes on the Paper. The scheme of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridge-
1555
ton Division has no ordinary panel. He does not take outsiders at all, but he takes 50 Peers and 50 Members of the House of Commons, and divides them into 50 groups of two each. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs takes all Scotch Members of Parliament and 15 Scotch Members of the House of Lords; and the hon. Member for Kincardineshire takes 20 Peers, 20 Members of the house of Commons, and 10 othér persons, and provides for five Chairmen. The scheme which we propose to submit to the House as a compromise is based on the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. We propose to make Members of both Houses of Parliament eligible as Commissioners, to take 25 other persons, and to put in words of preferential selection. With that explanation I will read exactly how Clauses 4 and 5 will stand if my Amendment is carried. Clause 4 will be as follows:—
On or before the first day of January next after commencement of this Act there shall be formed a panel of persons (hereinafter referred to as the panel) qualified by experience of affairs to act as Commissioners under this Act. The panel shall be formed in manner following; that is to say:—(a) The Chairmen, acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland, after such preliminary inquiries as may be necessary, shall nominate 25 persons qualified as aforesaid to be placed on the panel hereinbefore mentioned. The persons so nominated shall remain on the panel for live years, and any casual vacancy on the panel caused by death, resignation, or disqualification shall be tilled up by the chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. (b) At the expiration of every period of five years the panel shall be re-formed in like manner and with the like incidents.
Clause 5 will read:—
When it is determined that Commissioners shall be appointed for the purpose of inquiring as to the propriety of issuing a Provisional Order or Orders under this Act the Secretary for Scotland, acting jointly with the Chairmen, shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint as Commissioners three persons being Members of either House of Parliament, or in default of such Member or Members Willing to serve being a person or persons nominated on the panel, and shall at the same time nominate one such person or Member as chairman.
I think I have made it clear that there shall be preferential selection of Members of Parliament, and that at the same time our scheme shall not break down in the event of their not being available.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the various schemes on the Paper, but anyone can see that any of them is infinitely more satisfactory as regards one important point than his scheme. He proceeds on the assumption that the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen shall do this work. Why not use the machinery of the House of Commons. If the Secretary for Scotland wants a panel, I am content to have a panel as a stand by, but why should we not have a Committee appointed in the same way as a Committee of this House? The Chairmen have nothing to do in the appointment of Committees, that work being done by the Committee of Selection. On the Second Reading I moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it would practically exclude Scottish Members from considering Scottish Private Bill legislation. There is a long standing rule of the Committee of Selection excluding Scottish Members from the consideration of Scottish Bills. In the Amendment I have placed on the paper I have expressly barred that custom, and my proposal is that in nominating Peers or Members of the House of Commons on the various panels under this Act the Committees of Selection shall not have regard to any precedent or usage excluding Scottish Peers or Members representing Scottish constituencies from serving on committees on Scottish Private Bills, but shall have regard solely to the fact of their having. no personal or local interest in orders likely to be proposed in connection with the group of counties in respect of which each panel is nominated. What I consider an essential point is that the Committee of Selection should nominate the panel, and that it should be nominated so as not to, exclude Scottish Members. It was urged in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading that there were many considerations for including Scottish Members, and the right hon. Gentleman assented to what was said by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, that if we could get a Parliamentary tribunal it would be eminently satisfactory and would command the confidence of the people of Scotland. The only objection put forward by the noble Lord was that we could not get Members of either House to serve, that it would be extremely inconvenient to have to go
1557
down to local inquiries, and that therefore there should be a panel of outside persons. The basis of my proposal is that we should give the Parliamentary panel a chance exactly as the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, and that failing that we should have the fancy panel which the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has so elaborately devised, selected in any way he chooses, which would be a supplemental panel to be called on in case Members of Parliament could not be got to serve. I do not believe there will be the smallest difficulty in getting Members of Parliament to serve, but it is necessary that we should place a bar on the exclusion of Scottish Members or Peers. You will get Members to serve if you select a panel large enough, and the Members who will be willing to serve will have a sufficient knowledge of Scottish affairs to make an investigation of the sort proposed a matter, not of drudgery, but of interest. The radical fault of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal appears to me to be that the selection is to be made, not by the tribunal entrusted by this House to select Members to serve on Parliamentary Committees, but by a new tribunal consisting of the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of the two Houses, who have no special knowledge of the subject, and upon whom the duty is imposed for the first time. I must say it is a most invidious function. It is not a matter of principle, but it is a matter of adopting existing machinery instead of the novel and revolutionary machinery proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. We should hand over the selection to the Committee of Selection, and we should ensure that the fact of a Member being a Scottish Member should not be a bar to his serving on the proposed Committees. The work of these Committees would not be hard. There were only twelve Bills brought forward last Session to which this proposal would apply, and the Railway Commissioners dispose of their business at the rate of one measure per day. Accordingly I do not see any chance whatever of the supplemental panel being called on, but I have not the smallest objection to its existence. But the selection of the Parliamentary panel should be made in accordance with Parliamentary practice, and a Committee nominated by the Committees of Selection would command very much more public
1558
confidence in Scotland than a Committee selected by the Chairmen of the two Houses, who, from their position, have absolutely no special knowledge as to the qualifications of Members of Parliament.

I presume this is only a preliminary discussion, and that the time will come to consider the whole details of the plan the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate will submit to the Committee. I must say that his proposal seems to meet, to a large extent, the views we have expressed on this side of the House, and I thank the Government and the right hon. Gentleman for going so far in that direction. It would, of course, have been more agreeable to our desires if there had been a possibility of confining the panel to Scotch Members and Scotch Peers. There may be a difficulty in the way of that, but I think that my hon. friend who has just sat down was justified in the hope he expressed that, it would be distinctly understood—whether explicitly inserted in the Bill or not—that there would be no bar against Scotch Members sitting on these Committees. I do not believe myself that there is any substantial objection to their sitting even now. It may have been the practice to avoid the appointment of Scotch Members sitting on Scotch Bills lest they should be in some way connected with the interests involved; but I think it is very necessary that we should know that they are eligible to serve. It is only right that they should be so, because it is from among them that we are most likely to get willing victims for these new duties. There is another little point in regard to the constitution of the Parliamentary panel that I should like cleared up, and that is, Are the Peers and Members of the House of Commons to be mixed up hotch-potch, and is the panel to be made out from them irrespective of what their origin is? For I think we ought not to have a panel composed entirely of Peers. Each Committee, in my opinion, should be composed of four Members, two being Peers and two Members of the House of Commons. My hon. friend who has just sat down has also taken objection to giving the Secretary for Scotland, even with the assistance of the Chairmen, the power of choosing the Members to serve on these Committees. Well, I think there is a great deal of force
1559
in what he said. I think it is rather anomalous to give the head of a public Department the power of choosing the Members to serve, especially when we have a well-constituted machinery in this House and in the House of Lords, in the shape of the Committees of Selection, which has always commanded the complete confidence of the respective Houses. Would it riot be possible to introduce their authority in the matter rather than the head of the Scotch Department? These are points well worthy of consideration, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will provide for them when we come to discuss his plan in its details. I can only say that while the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to fulfil the patriotic wishes of some Scotch Members to enable Scotland to do work for herself with her own Peers and her own Members of Parliament, nobody else intervening, he has gone so far to meet her views on the subject, and I hope the scheme will be in the main acceptable.

I wish to thank the Government for the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the feelings of a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have a full conviction that there will be no difficulty in getting Members of the House of Commons to accept this important and dignified public service. The objection that this panel is to be fixed by the Secretary for Scotland, together with the Chairmen of Committees, is not particularly relevant. It must be borne in mind that these tribunals may have to be selected when the House is not sitting.

That is a matter of detail which can he provided for afterwards. I am disposed to enter a caveat against any limiting or restricting words which will have the effect of limiting the choice to Scotch Members or Scotch Peers. A number of Peers in the House of Lords sit there in a representative character, and others sit as British Peers. Again, a number of distinguished and energetic Members of this House
1560
who sit for English consituencies are Scotchmen, and I would not like to see them excluded from serving on these Commissions.

I congratulate the Government on the position they have taken up. They have met us very fairly. As I understand it, the Lord Advocate has followed to some extent an Amendment I put down. My hon. friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton, has stated that Scotch Members are excluded from Scotch Committees in this House. The best answer to that statement is that all this morning I have been sitting on a purely Scotch Committee, and that there is also a second Scotch Member on it.

In the evidence of the late Sir John Mowbray on the subject he said there was no rule on the matter, but the custom had arisen, and the reason was that, for the convenience of hon. Members, Bills were grouped in such a way that Members who sat on the Committees on one group of Bills might be eligible for all the Bills on the group. If a Scotch Bill happens to be grouped with English Bills, a Scotch Member might sit in Committee upon it. I hope that in any case the Lord Advocate will accept some Amendment which will make it perfectly clear that Scotch Members are to be put on such Committees, and that they are to be preferred to other Members. But I am not inclined to press for limiting the composition of the Committees to Scotch Members, as it would be more likely to involve an appeal to the outside panel. At present you work a Bill upstairs with a Committee of four Members, and if appealed to both Houses eight Members; whereas under the procedure proposed by this Bill there will be four Members only employed before the Provisional Order passes through the whole of its course. Therefore it seems to me that you are actually reducing the number of Members of Parliament required. I hope my hon. friend will stick to his Amendment, that the Chairmen of Committees,
1561
and not the Scotch Secretary, will elect the panels.

I do not quite so readily accept the concessions made by the Lord Advocate as my hon. friend. I looked upon this Bill as a useful measure because it had a certain Scotch flavour about it, and for the life of me I cannot see why the Lord Advocate should have departed from his original intention. I would rather have had the Bill as it originally stood than in the state in which it at present stands, for except on a very few points we will be practically where we were. Take, for instance, the proposal to bring English Members into the panel, or take again the proposal that the panel may sit in any place they may choose. My idea was that the Committee was to sit in Scotland; but if English Members are to be on the panel it is a very big order indeed to ask them to go up to Scotland and sit there in judgment on a Scotch Bill.

I certainly mean that the inquiry shall be made locally, and I propose to accept an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, that the Commissioners should sit in Scotland.

Well, if we have local inquiry, and if English Members are going to be used in these inquiries, they will have to go down to Scotland to perform their functions. That is a tall order indeed. Although it might be popular if they sat in the middle of August, I do not think that English Members will do their duty with great equanimity if they have to go down to Scotland in the middle of November or December. This Amendment shows weakness on the part of the Government. It is ridiculous that English Members should go up to Scotland in mid-winter to sit on a little Railway Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to give the preference to Scottish Members and Scotch Peers, I think he will greatly improve the value of the Bill. There is only one other point I wish to enforce, and that is that the appointment of the Committees should be made by the Committees of Selection, and that the panel ought not to be appointed for five years. The panel ought to be appointed every year.

I do not wish to delay progress, but I want to point out what seems to be one defect of the proposal. Inquiries held under the present Provisional Order system vary according to the importance of the Provisional Orders. Sometimes the inquiry is very important, and in a recent instance the President of the Board of Trade himself presided over the inquiry. But many inquiries are held under the supervision of an inspector or some other Departmental official. That gives an elasticity to the system. It seems to me that one defect of the new proposal is that, no matter what the importance of the subject of inquiry, the same elaborate machinery is to be employed.

I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment. There is one point which has not been touched upon. Why I am in favour of the form embodied in my Amendment is that when the system of devolution was tried some years ago, it was given up because of the cost; for they had a fight in the locality, and then two fights in Parliament, which piled up the expenses. The reason why I am very strongly in favour of having the panel composed of two Peers and two Commoners is that when the Commissioners go down to Scotland to hold the inquiry locally it is not at all likely that there will be an appeal to the House, especially when the appellants may be mulcted in costs.

I rise to move the first of a series of Amendments which I have drafted embodying a scheme. My scheme is that, for convenience in distributing the work, the Secretary for Scotland should divide the country into different groups of counties—say three; and that the Committee of Selection in either House of Parliament should name a number—I suggest fifty, or it may be more or less—fifty Peers and fifty Mem-
1563
bers of this House, and that these should be divided into as many panels as there are groups of counties. When a Bill is to be referred to one of these tribunals, I propose that the Committee of Selection shall nominate the Members from the appropriate panel. Further, I propose that the tribunal shall consist of two Members of the House of Lords, and two Members of the House of Commons, the Chairman to be alternately a Member of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, and to be nominated also by the Committee of Selection. I have contemplated that it might be necessary to elect a tribunal when the Committee of Selection is not sitting. In that case the election will be made by the Chairmen of Committees alone. I think that the present proposals are somewhat crude, and that this is a matter in which you cannot have the Secretary for Scotland kept too much out of the business of selection. It is most important that there should be no suspicion whatever as to any possibility of his packing the Committee. I do not mean to say that the Secretary for Scotland would do so; but if you had him selecting, from all the Members of Parliament, one Member of this House, or two or three Members from the other House, you would have a Committee in which there would be no public confidence at all. The reason why Parliamentary Committees command so much confidence is that they are an impartial tribunal nominated in either House. As compared with the proposal of the Lord Advocate, every one of the schemes placed on the Paper has the merit of being worked out in detail and thoroughly thought out; but I must say that the Lord Advocate's proposal is crude, and has certainly not been worked out so thoroughly as the others. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the words the Lord Advocate proposed to embody in the Bill gave us not the slightest inkling as to the proportion of the Members of the House of Lords and of this House to be represented on the Committees. It is a matter of constitutional importance that the Committees appointed under this Measure should be representative of the two Houses, and the obvious way to do that is to have an equal number of Members from each House. I believe the proposal of the Lord Advocate will require to be entirely redrafted. You have no machinery whatever for the representa-
1564
tion of this House or the other House on these Parliamentary tribunals, but the selection is entrusted without any check to the Secretary for Scotland, acting jointly with the Chairmen of Committees. The right hon. Gentleman will find it necessary to give principle of equilibrium to the clause by inserting some machinery for the election of Members of this House and the other House infinitely more elaborate than he has embodied in the Bill. Whether you are going to have such a system of grouping as I propose, or not, it is most important that we should remove the barrier at present existing against Scotch Members sitting on Scotch Committees. It is said that there is no constitutional disability on the part of Scotch Members sitting on Scotch Bills, That is true, but in the whole course of my experience I never knew of the appointment of a Scotch Member upon a group of Scotch Bills. I believe if Scotch Members were placed on these Committees in proportion to their numbers in this House that they would serve where English Members would not. But in order to have an opportunity of serving they must be upon the panel.

The greater part of the hon. Baronet's remarks are really more appropriate to Clause 5 than Clause 4, because obviously the place to deal with an Amendment of this kind is the last section in Clause 5. All that we have to do at present is to see how we are to deal between the hon. Baronet's scheme and the scheme put forward by the Government. I can assure him he will find that the Government scheme has been very carefully drafted, and I do not think he will find it any more slipshod than any Amendment on the Paper. The only question that arises here is whether we shall have upon the panel members other than Members of Parliament. I have already explained that it is necessary to have other people, and some word or other
1565
is necessary to describe other people. I think "panel" is as convenient a word as any other, and the whole scope of this clause is simply to provide for the selection of those people other than Members of Parliament. Under the circumstances I cannot accept the hon. Baronet's Amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot, in this case, agree with the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, but I think that if his scheme were adopted it would lead to too great a complication, and prejudice the popularity of the measure. With regard to the objections of the Lord Advocate, I might point out that the panel is going to contain 1,200 people already. It is to contain both Houses of Parliament. I think that a great thing in

In forming the panel, Scotland, I think, should be divided into three or four groups, with the idea of having a wider area from which you could select the panel with reference to any particular Bill, and in that way you would be able to make a selection without any invidious distinctions. When you came to a particular Bill the Committee of Selection would consider the panel, and in that way there would be a certain amount of limitation in the selection. The advantage of a system of this kind would be that there would not be such a continuous appointment of particular persons for special Bills.

I notice that the next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, who has not yet returned—to leave out from "panel" to the end of line 15. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate will insist upon those words.

The hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs is not here to move his Amendment, but I have no doubt that he feels very strongly that the selection of the 25 members of the outside panel should not be left in the hands of the Chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. In regard to determining whether any part of the Bill should proceed by Provisional Order or by Private Bill, it has already been pointed out that the Chairman had so much work to do that the proposal was imposing very great work upon him. You are here imposing upon him a burden of a kind which is altogether foreign to any experience that he has in this House. In regard to deciding under which method a Bill should proceed, there can be no doubt whatever that the Chairman naturally is the best authority if he had the time for the work, but this is a different matter altogether. What particular knowledge would the Chairman have of people in Scotland? I do not consider that the Chairman has necessarily the requisite experience to select men of the kind desired, and the practical result would be that the selection
1568
would be made by the Secretary for Scotland. I quite admit that very likely this outside panel would not be required to act, as probably from Members of Parliament alone a sufficient panel would be found, and that minimises the point here. I therefore move to leave out the words "the chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland" in order to insert "the Committee of Selection of either House."

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 18, to leave out from the first 'The,' to 'Scotland,' in line 19, and insert Committee of Selection of either House.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

I do not think the hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs would have moved this Amendment if he had been here. This clause has simply to do with the selection of the outside Commissioners. I quite agree that perhaps the Chairman has not a great deal of experience on this point. The alternative of the hon. Member is the Committee of Selection. Surely the Committee of Selection are not the people to select an outside body. They have just as little knowledge as the Chairman would have, and have far less flexibility. If I had been drafting the clause myself I should have been inclined to put the Secretary for Scotland alone, because he knows more about the people. But there is a jealousy about the Secretary for Scotland doing anything himself, and I am very anxious to meet that feeling, and I have therefore associated with him the two Chairmen.

I may explain at once that this Amendment was put down as part of the general scheme of Amendments which I laid before the House. It was appropriate to that scheme, but the substantial purpose of it has been served by the concessions of Her Majesty's Government. I understand now that Section 4 is to be confined to the extra-Parliamentary panel, and by the provisions of Section 5 there is to be proposed a Parliamentary panel, so that Section 4 will only operate if the provisions of Section 5 should fail to come into operation. Accordingly, I should not myself insist upon the Amendment, because while the Committee of Selection of the House of Commons is most appropriate for the selection of inter-Parliamentary bodies, it is not at all a proper body for selecting this panel, which is only to be, as it were, a dernier ressort after the proposals of the Government in regard to the Parliamentary panel have failed.

I take it that this panel is not to be limited to Scotch people; the Secretary for Scotland may appoint an Irishman, or a Welshman, or an American; there is no limitation. Hence you could not expect the Committee of Selection to know much more about the matter than the two Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland. I think under the circumstances the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment and let the Lord Advocate get this portion, if it is only a panel pis aller—only to be used if the other cannot be got.

I think it will be found that this panel is altogether useless, and if the words "may if they consider it necessary" were inserted it would he optional for future Secretaries for Scotland to appoint a panel or not, as it was found necessary. As the Bill stands all future Secretaries for Scotland would be called upon to appoint these 25 persons. Therefore I propose this Amendment, the object of which is simply to give the opportunity of dropping the machinery if it is found necessary.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 20, to cave out 'shall,' and insert "may it they consider it necessary.'"—

It seems to me it is not the Secretary for Scotland, but the Chairmen who are to appoint, and they are to ask the Secretary for Scotland to assist them. We take it that the present Chairmen and the present Secretary for Scotland will appoint this committee, and perhaps for the next five, ten or fifteen, years it may he appointed; but surely if it is found unnecessary you do not want the trouble and expense of forming a panel which is never used. The view is that 1,200 Members of Parliament should form one panel, but if sufficient Members cannot be obtained this other panel is to be called in. If, however, plenty of Members are found, this clause might fall into disuse. Surely it might he left to the discretion of the Chairmen whether the panel should be appointed. At any rate the Amendment can do no harm.

If experience shows, as I have no doubt it will, that there are plenty of Members to he obtained, it will not be advisable to appoint a panel of this kind. For one thing it is invidious, because when there are certain men appointed on the panel there is the difficulty of selecting particular men. It will also be a very awkward thing to select a panel when you know perfectly well that that panel is not at all likely to be used.

I do not in the least desire to anticipate anybody else, but I suppose we are now on the number of the panel, which is supposed to he 25. Is not that number excessive, if it is to be a real thing at all, and if those who are put upon the panel are to he capable and competent men? I do not say that 25 such men will not be
1571
found in the kingdom, but still it is rather a large number for the purpose. I would also suggest that they should not hold the exalted position in which they are to be placed for as long as five years. Would not 10 Members appointed for two years be better? Someone referred to the desperately small number of cases that would have to be submitted to this panel, and I really think—with 25 men at the back of 1,200 members, as it was put by a previous speaker, 1,225—that 1,210 would be sufficient to cope with perhaps the half-a-dozen inquiries which would be necessary in the course of the year. I quite appreciate the desire of the Lord Advocate not to be left to the goodwill of Members of Parliament, and that he should have somebody behind them upon whom he could fall back, but I think 10 men appointed for two years would be quite sufficient for the purpose.

The reason of fixing the number at 25 was to give a number that would be sufficient to deal perfectly well with the duties to be discharged. I am not bound to the number 25, but, on the other hand, 10 is rather few. The right hon. Gentleman prophesies that 10 would be plenty, but he might he wrong. As to the suggestion about two years, I think it would be a pity that the Committee should have to be re-formed at such short intervals. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks 25 is too many, I should be very glad to make it 20; that would be much safer than 10.

I do not regard it as a question of principle. I do not know whether this would be the time to ask whether these 20 persons are to be paid, and if so, in what way? Our feeling towards these gentlemen would be considerably affected by that fact. I will be perfectly candid. There is always a possibility that if a considerable emolument were attached to being employed on the panel, it might increase the difficulty of finding Members and Peers to act upon it. That may be a Machiavellian, almost Mephistophelian, conception
1572
of the state of mind of those employed on this matter, but it is a consideration which must be borne in mind.

I confess that my first impression was in favour of payment, because I rather felt it might be very valuable to have the services of some persons who could not afford to serve without some emolument. But, at the same time, the Treasury allowances are on so modest and sparing a scale that I do not think they would offer any inducement. It having been brought home to me that there is a very considerable feeling on both sides of the House in regard to the matter, and recognising that feeling, I should be prepared, when the time comes, to accept an Amendment to strike out the italicised clause—that is to say, in other words, to make no payment.

I move to substitute the word "two" for the word "four," so that it will read—" shall remain therein until the expiration of two years." The first part of the scheme which the Lord Advocate has foreshadowed to the House is that we shall have a Parliamentary panel. It is perfectly clear that the composition of Parliament changes, and changes rapidly, from time to time, and it would be most unfortunate that we should have a permanent Parliamentary panel lasting for five years, or probably four, after the constitution of Parliament had completely changed.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 22, to leave out the word 'five,' and insert the word 'two.'"—(Mr. Thomas Show.)

I hope the Lord Advocate will be willing to shorten the period. If it is as long as five years you must provide for filling up casual vacancies, while if the period is reduced to two or three years the casual vacancies will
1573
look after themselves. With the prospect of so soon making another panel you would not need to trouble about filling vacancies from time to time.

I rather hoped that the hon. and learned Member intended to insert the word "one," because all the panels of this House are appointed for only one year, and I do not see why an innovation should he introduced in a panel outside the House. We should keep within regular lines as far as possible.

I think the hon. Member is rather misled by the word "panel." These are merely persons from whom the selection is to be made, and in that sense the panels of the House are not made up every year, but correspond with the duration of Parliament. Really the whole matter is one more of convenience than anything else. I do not think it can be said that casual vacancies would not have to be filled, because there must be occasions when, through some misfortune, the numbers were very much reduced indeed. Therefore it would not be safe to take

§
out the clause with regard to filling casual vacancies. The hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs rather wanted the average life of these extra Commissioners to be the same as that of Parliamentary Commissioners. I suppose four years would not be far away from the average life of Parliament, and therefore the two, numbers would be much the same. I want to save the trouble of having this number of gentlemen selected too often.

I really appeal to my hon. friend not to be too hard upon the Government. The Secretary for Scotland has set his heart upon this panel. He has had it opposed in all sorts of ways, and now he has got it down to this, and with this he says he will be content. Let him have his panel. It will never be called upon to act. Let him have it for five years. He is like the boy and the soap—he won't be happy till he gets it.

The Committee of Selection should appoint these new tribunals, and when Parliament is not sitting they should be selected by the Chairmen from a list of Members nominated by the Committee of Selection for that purpose. There is not the smallest difficulty about it. My Amendment proposes that these Commissioners should be nominated not by the Secretary for Scotland, acting in concert with the Chairmen, but, on the grounds which have been repeatedly set forth in this Debate, that this should be done by the Committee of Selection. I think this is an intelligible proposition, and also an important modification.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 31, to leave out the words Secretary for Scotland acting jointly with the Chairmen,' and insert the words Committees of Selection of the Houses of Lords and Commons respectively.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

Hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is something far away from the duties of the ordinary Chairman of Committees. They forget, I think, for the moment that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is also Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am perfectly willing to substitute for the Chairman of Committees in the House
1577
of Commons the Chairman of the Committee of Selection of this House. Of course the Committees of Selection themselves would be cumbersome bodies to carry out the intention of this clause, and it would be necessary to make special provision for cases arising during the recess.

I hope my hon. friend will agree to the suggestion which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, for I think that upon the lines which have just been conceded we have practically gained the point which we desired to achieve. It does appear to me that the argument of my right hon. friend is particularly applicable to these cases of Private Bills.

We are now going to appoint the short panel to go down and make the preliminary inquiries. I take it that the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords will appoint the Peers, and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons will appoint the Commoners. I think there ought to be some limitation as to the number, and the arrangement suggested seems to be very unsuitable. If we are going to have a Joint Committee, we ought to have an equal number of Peers and Commoners. Under the present system we have a large panel from which the Committees are taken, and I should like to know if that is the panel from which they are going to be taken in the future.

The objection which my friends and myself still entertain to the amended panel of the right hon. Gentleman is that we wish the selecting authority to be purely Parliamentary, and we do not wish to have this power exercised by the Secretary for Scotland. In this matter, surely the selection of the Members of the House of Commons, and the Peers also, to serve
1578
in this capacity should be left, as near as we can get, to the ordinary selecting authority of Parliament. The only objection I have heard is that this process may have to be conducted during the recess, when the Committee of Selection is not sitting. What would there be to hinder the Committee of Selection first of all dealing with all the necessities that arose during the session; and, as to the necessities that may arise during the recess, they might, before Parliament is prorogued, establish a sort of subordinate panel, and ascertain the names of a number of Members who would be available for this purpose when the occasion arose, and a limited number might be appointed for any occasional requirements during the recess, and from these the Chairmen or anybody else might select particular Members. In that way we should keep the whole thing in Parliamentary hands. I think, however much we may recognise the desire of the Lord Advocate to meet us, he still retains the bone of contention, which is the practice of an outside element meddling with Parliamentary matters.

As far as the outside element is concerned, I should like to know if the following words will meet the views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Instead of saying "the Secretary for Scotland acting jointly with the Chairmen," I suggest the words "the two Chairmen, after communication with the Secretary for Scotland."

I think that the more the Lord Advocate reflects upon this matter the more he will see that the Secretary for Scotland ought to have nothing to do with it. If it is to be a mixed panel, then let the Committee of Selection appoint all the members that are required, and, if there happens to be one or two short, then let the Secretary for Scotland come on with his 20 eligibles, or his regiment of men, but let us keep the Parliamentary part of it in our hands. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this.

I hope the Lord Advocate will assent to this proposal. There is no harm in leaving out the Secretary for Scotland in this instance, for he appears in Section 4. As regards any
1579
question of local knowledge, the Secretary for Scotland is really quite unnecessary, and why should he have anything to do with the selection of representative Members of this House or of the other House? I think the two Chairmen would be by far the best persons who could be selected, in order that the selection should secure Parliamentary representation, and that would be carrying out the suggestion of the Lord Advocate. Really in this matter the Secretary for Scotland has no locus standi at all. Although I do not desire to use the harsh terms used by the Leader of the Opposition, I do hope the Lord Advocate will assent to this Amendment.

I have been on a Committee of Selection, and I know how the thing is worked. At the end of the session I have often seen a Committee run very short. I think it is most essential that the representative character of these Committees should be preserved, and if you are going to have a substitute, then by all means have your Chairman of Committees or your Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that this difficulty has arisen owing to his misuse of the word "panel" in connection with these 25 gentlemen.

I trust that the Lord Advocate will consent to omit the Secretary for Scotland from this clause. There are many reasons for taking this course. It has already been pointed out that the Secretary for Scotland has been inserted in Clause 4. The chief objection of the Lord Advocate is that the Chairmen of the Committees would not have any knowledge of the

§
reserve panel, and therefore that it is necessary to include someone who is, likely to have such knowledge; but the provisions with reference to the Scots Secretary in Clause 4 deprives this objection of its force. On the other hand, however willing the Scotch Members might be, it is quite conceivable that English Members of the House of Commons might object to serve as Commissioners upon the nomination of a Scots Secretary, and the operation of the Bill might thus be seriously impeded, because the difficulty of getting men to serve might be very much increased by insisting on this retention of the Secretary for Scotland. On this side of the House it is felt that if the Secretary for Scotland is made one of three Members who are to nominate these Commissioners, then the power will ultimately rest with the Secretary for Scotland, and the Chairmen of Committees will be merely nominal factors in the matter. I trust, therefore, that the Lord Advocate will leave out the Secretary for Scotland from the clause.

I hope that the Lord Advocate will not leave "the Secretary for Scotland" out of the clause. I particularly object to the proposal to bring forward the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in a matter of this kind. It is quite a novelty to separate the Chairman of the Committee of Selection from his Committee, and I cannot see that there is any fitness in the proposal relating to him.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 33, to leave 'Orders,' to 'to act,' in line 34, 'appoint three persons being Members of
1582
either House of Parliament, or persons whose names are on the panel.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)

§
Question proposed, That the words
1583
proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

With regard to this Amendment, we are grateful for the proposal to have a Parliamentary panel, but I think there is a very great objection to the terms of the Amendment now proposed. My reasons can be very briefly stated. There have been several suggestions made by the Lord Advocate with regard to one or two things in which he was willing to make concessions to the Members on this side of the House to a certain extent. We hope that he will stick by what he has stated he was willing to concede, and with that hope I beg to move as an Amendment that there shall be "two persons Members of each House of Parliament." We want the Committee of this House to be quite as strong as the Private Bill Committee is. In the next place I would suggest that as this Bill is now framed, the Secretary for Scotland acting with the two Chairmen can make a selection of Members entirely from the other House. The effect of this proposal will be to leave these three gentlemen in the position of having the power to exclude either House of Parliament according to their own will. They may select three Peers for every Scotch Bill, or the Secretary for Scotland might think that no Lord was competent to sit upon the Committee. I do not think my right hon. friend quite realises that what he proposes would not be a Joint Committee at all; therefore I suggest that he should leave out "three Members of either" and insert "two Members of each."

The objection to having four Members is twofold. In the first place it would make the tribunal larger than is necessary for the work to be done, but the great difficulty would be to get Peers to carry out the work. I might suggest here that it was never the idea nor is it the desire of the Government that one House should be chosen exclusively of the other. It would be easy to devise words so that the Committee should be composed of two Peers and one commoner or of two commoners and one Peer. I suggest this for the consideration of the Committee.

If we had no precedent there might be a good deal to be said in favour of having
1584
three upon the Committee rather than four. But at the same time, all our Committees are composed of four Members. I do not know the reason why they are composed of four, but I should suppose that it was in order to have two Members from each side of this House. That is the position in which we now stand; we want two Members from each House; and four is the established number on House of Commons Committees. I do not see that there is very much in the theory of the Lord Advocate that it will be overweighting the tribunal, and there is no other way in which we can have an equal proportion of the two Houses.

I quite sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to preserve a certain symmetry in the existing practice, and I think there is a certain advantage in having a Committee of four instead of three. But the reason for making it three instead of four is a reason of convenience, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentlemen opposite whose desire is to keep this tribunal within the four walls of Parliament would prefer three. If you insist upon having four you may not be able to get two Members from the House of Lords, but there is no special objection to your having four if you desire it, and if this proposal goes against the wishes of hon. Members opposite I see no objection to accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member.

Looking at this Bill as one which affects Ireland, I do not think, even if the Government accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, that it will be satisfactory. Because, instead of having an important Private Bill examined and adjudicated on by this House in the first instance, you would have it relegated to a Committee composed of half Lords and half Commons, and I do not think anything would be so unsatisfactory. I take for example the Dublin Bill of the other day. What chance should we have had of getting this Bill through if this machinery had been in force? It would have been killed at its birth. There is no doubt that some great change is required in Private Bill
1585
procedure, and is required for Ireland no less than for Scotland, but I do think that the lines upon which this Bill is drawn are most dangerous lines. While they save some expense, they threaten us with the abrogation of every claim we have.

I rather favour the words "and in the event of the Chairman selecting the panel and their not appearing to serve on the panel," than the present wording, and I will move that Amendment in order to obtain a reply from the Lord Advocate. It will prevent the outside panel being called upon until it is known that no Member of either House can be got to serve.

§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out all the words after 'panel,' in order to insert the words 'and in the event of the Chairman selecting the panel and their not appearing to serve on the panel.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

§
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

Obviously the words cannot stand as they are. I propose to amend the Amendment as follows:—
Appoint as Commissioners two Members of each House of Parliament, or in default of such Member or Members willing to serve, persons then in the panel.

I think it might be made plainer, and instead of "Member or Members willing to serve" it might read, "Member or Members being found willing to serve." I think the right hon. Gentleman is entirely at one with us in the matter. Supposing the tribunal is formed, and one Member is smitten with influenza, then we are not to go to the outside panel, but arc still to keep to the Parliamentary reservoir.

As my right hon. friend has explained, our idea is that there should be two Members of the House of Commons and two Members of the House of Lords. If the House of Lords can only produce one Member, then we will try to get three from the House of Commons, and if the House of Lords cannot supply one, then we will have four from the House of Commons. But even if the House of Commons fails, then we will have the panel of which we have heard so much. As both sides are in agreement, I think the exact drafting might be left over to the Report stage.

It will be necessary to make some provision for the appointment of a Chairman. The Chairman should alternately be a Member of either House, and that is a point which ought to be provided for in the Bill.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 35, at end, to insert, 'Any casual vacancy among the Commissioners or in the office of Chairman of the Commissioners caused by death, resignation, or disqualification, or inability to give attendance, such resignation or inability to attend being certified by a writing under the Commissioner's hand addressed to the Secretary for Scotland, shall be filled up by the Secretary for Scotland by appointing a Member of either House or a member of the panel.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)

This is quite contrary to the spirit of what we have agreed to. Vacancies should be filled
1587
up in accordance with Parliamentary procedure.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 36, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert: 'If it shall happen that all or any of the Commissioners so appointed are not Members of either House of Parliament, there shall be paid to such of the Commissioners as are not Members of either House of Parliament such remuneration for their services as the Treasury shall determine.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)

I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 3. I think it is perfectly easy, considering the large number we will have to choose from, for hon. Gentlemen to look ahead and see what their engagements are going to be. It was quite a different thing when we had only a panel of 25 Members, a few of whom might be Members of either House. Now we have the two Houses to select from, and I think Members ought to be able to judge how far they may be free to undertake these duties.

There is one question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of an English, Welsh, or Irish Member failing to attend the inquiry in Scotland, can he be reported to the House in the ordinary way? If there is to be no report, what is the use of appointing a
1588
Member? What sort of pressure is it proposed to bring to bear on Members to attend?

We have already debated the desirability of Scottish Members not being debarred from serving on these Committees, and to emphasise that point I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, line 7, after 'Order,' add 'providing that this will not disqualify Scottish Members of either House of Parliament from acting on Committees which deal with Orders which they have no local or personal interest."—(Mr. Crombie.)

I quite agree that the inquiry should be in Scotland. But more is required. The people of Dundee object to an inquiry being held in Edinburgh; and the people of Aberdeen would probably prefer to come to London than to go to Edinburgh if they could not get an inquiry in their own locality. The whole object of the Bill is to have a local inquiry, and it should be limited to the county or to the borough concerned. If we only say "in Scotland," it will mean that these inquiries will be held in Edinburgh for the benefit of the Edinburgh lawyers. There can be no question that there would be a tendency to hold the inquiries in Scotland where the Commissioners would get better accommodation. I therefore move to insert after "in" in the Amendment the words "the locality in."

The hon. Gentleman would, as far as I can see,
1590
have attained his object by moving the words "exclusive of Edinburgh." This Amendment would, however, make the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs unintelligible. It is provided in the Bill that the Commissioners shall hold their inquiry "at such place as they may determine with due regard to the subject matter of the proposed Order, and to the locality to which its provisions relate." "Such place" obviously includes every place in Scotland, and the section does everything in the way of showing Commissioners where they ought to hold the inquiry. I really think the Amendment would not improve the Bill.
Question put, and negatived.

I would suggest to the Lord Advocate whether it would not be better to omit the words "maintained at the public expense." If these words are retained it might be impossible to use buildings otherwise available.

The Amendment which stands in my name is one of a series which develops a new scheme under this clause. I may tell the House in a few words what my object is. It is that there shall not be an inquiry conducted in London, in accordance with the present practice, after an inquiry has been conducted in Scotland. I think that the success or the failure of this Bill depends on the action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Amendment. It appears to me that it would be most unsatisfactory if the Government insist that after this elaborate procedure in
1591
Scotland the whole matter should be thrown into hotch-pot again, and that there should be a further protracted and expensive inquiry in London. What we have now done is to establish the proposition that Parliament shall retain its control over the whole proceedings. All the distance we have gone in regard to the Joint Committees is to change the locale of the inquiry. It is out of the question to put the Joint Committee in the undignified position of holding a preliminary inquiry, and then having the real battle in London. Our object in having a local inquiry is that Parliament should come to the spot, and there once and for all settle the matter so far as the Committee's inquiry can do it. I agree that the Confirmation Bill should be lodged and discussed on the Third Reading in the ordinary way. I.hope the Government will consent to the Amendment.

§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, line 31, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the clause, to the word 'after,' in line 32."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.

The technical position of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member is such that it is a little difficult to discover what the meaning of it is. I think I can explain to the Committee how it stands. Under the scheme of the Bill and the promises I have made to the House I have had to divide necessarily the Provisional Orders into opposed and unopposed Orders. All along there has been this distinction; whereas on unopposed Orders there is not to be any inquiry or Committee stage up here in London, yet all along the scheme of the Bill has been that in the case of opposed Orders the possibility of an opponent coming to this House on the Confirmation Bill and opposing it has been kept open. The only distinction between the proposed
1592
procedure and that which obtains at present is that the proposal in the Bill is that the inquiry in London shall be by Joint Committee of both Houses, instead of by a separate inquiry before each House. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member is really with a view of taking out all the provisions I have made in regard to the opponent coming here on the Confirmation Bill. I have always held that it was right in principle that an opponent should have on opportunity of taking the sense of Parliament in regard to a Bill; I adhere to that view, and I am sure it would be against the great body of opinion in the House if I went back on my promise.

I am afraid that, unless the Amendment is adopted, instead of the cost of obtaining a Provisional Order being moderate, as compared with the present system, it would be increased, perhaps doubled or trebled. Why should any petitioner in Scotland who has paid for all his advertisements and notices, and made his deposit, and submitted to an inquiry by a Committee of two Peers and two Commoners, which Committee has decided on the matter—why should such a petitioner have to come to Parliament again, repeat his notices and advertisements and deposit, and appear before other two Peers and two Commoners upstairs, who would not have the advantage of seeing the people to be affected and the spot to which the Bill applies? This second inquiry is totally unnecessary.

I am afraid the Lord Advocate has not looked at the proposal thoroughly and the effect of it. The question is whether we should have in this House a Joint Committee after the matter has been inquired into locally in Scotland by another Joint Committee.

The question raised by the hon. Member of the Border Burghs is undoubtedly an important one. If the
1593
Amendment is carried it would be inconsistent with the whole framework of the Bill, would work out unjustly, and would impair the control of the House over these Provisional Orders which we have always insisted upon. It has never been suggested at any stage of the discussion until this moment that a man should not have the right of an ordinary hearing before a Joint Committee appointed by this House and the House of Lords. I hope the Lord Advocate will not consent to this Amendment.

There is one point which I omitted. The class of Bills which will come before the Commissioners will be very small Bills; all the important Bills will never leave this House, but will be considered here. The Amendment will only affect very small Orders, the policy and principle of which had already been decided by Parliament. So far as we have been able to modify the Bill at all, it has been to limit the cases which will go before the Commissioners.

It would be ridiculous, in my opinion, if, after there had been an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee sitting locally, there should be another inquiry by another Parliamentary Committee sitting here.

It is curious to me how, in one and the same breath, hon. Members ask that the control of the House over these Orders should be retained, and then they wish to throw that control away in the Bill. We have always promised to give the House control even of unopposed Orders. If this Amendment is passed, the result would be that, whereas the House has always felt that that control should be sparingly exercised at a late stage, if an objector were prevented from coming up here then, undoubtedly, he would in every case incite someone in the House to raise the question in the House itself. An abuse of
1594
that kind ought certainly to be guarded against. I am keeping faith with the House in standing by the Bill upon the promises made from the beginning. I never could have faced the discussion after the Second Reading if I were to take away from a practical opponent all power of coming to this House.

The Lord Advocate says that he is very glad that I have such faith in the tribunal he has set up that I would go much further than himself. I have much confidence in the tribunal which the Committee of the House of Commons has set up. What we have done is that a Parliamentary Committee has been set up to make inquiries on the spot, to inspect the localities, and to have in view all the circumstances which the local authorities can furnish them with. It seems to me the most incredible thing I ever heard of that after a local inquiry the whole thing should be done again in London, and a second Joint Committee of both Houses should sit in review of the operations of the first Joint Committee. The new inquiry was to he cheap, but the Lord Advocate's proposal will obliterate every element of cheapness. There is no analogy between a local inquiry under the old Provisional Order system and one under this Bill. Local inquiry under this Bill is not an inquiry by Departmental Committee at all, but an inquiry by this House and the other House. And I altogether object to the duplication of that. If the Amendment be not adopted, the whole Bill will be cumbersome, unpractical, and unworkable, and its administration most expensive.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.